Govindrao S/O Krishnaji Bramhankar v. State Of Maha., Thr. Secy., Agricultural Dept., Mumbai And ORS.

2025:BHC-NAG:14664-DB 123wp3357.2023.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3357 OF 2023 Govindrao s/o Krishnaji Bramhankar Vs State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Agricultural Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai-32 and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. C.A. Joshi, counsel for petitioner.

Mr. D.P. Thakre, Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

CORAM

: ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATE : 19/12/2025 1.

Heard.

2.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the judgment dated 25/01/2016 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur, in Original Application No. 496/2008, by which the said application was rejected. 3.

It is necessary to mention that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement on 01/09/1984, and on 17/11/2000, the Government rejected his claim for the grant of any retirement benefits. On 28/01/1985 he tendered resignation of his post and it was accepted on 05/02/1985 with effect from 31/01/1985. Thereafter, in 2007, the Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur, informed the petitioner that the Government had rejected his claim. The aforesaid order was challenged in the Original Application. The Original Application was decided in 2016, whereas the present writ petition was filed in 2023.

rkn

123wp3357.2023.odt 4.

Be that as it may, we have gone through the record. There is delay on part of the petitioner in not only approaching the competent authorities for grant of service benefits but also in approaching the Tribunal as well as this Court. Even otherwise, a perusal of the order, more particularly paragraph 3 of the learned Tribunal, reveals that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 5.

Since the claim is hit by delay and laches, and the order passed by the Tribunal is legal, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) rkn